DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/37/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner appreciate the time and effort of the Applicant in the compact prosecution of this case.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose “at least one of the plurality of spacer is located in the buffer element”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Toru clearly discloses the spacers, S, are located in the sealing material, 30, surrounding both the active area and the buffer area. As shown in Fig. 5, a portion of the sealing material 30 is bordering and inside the active area (A1) and the buffer area (A2), invariably providing the spacers in the buffer area (see annotated Fig. 5 below). The Spacers S have not been construed as the expansion material B. In fact, the expansion material has not been referenced in the rejection, except the buffer region providing space for adjusting the volume of the liquid crystal flowing from the active region.
PNG
media_image1.png
304
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If further attempts are made to properly and completely define the invention, Applicant is advised to consider the paragraphs or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references, as noted below. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well; and such passages and/or figures may be helpful to Applicant in preparing a response to this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toru (JP4760155B2) in view of Stevenson et al. (US 20150222021).
Regarding claim 1:
Toru discloses (in Figs. 1-2) an antenna device (1) with an active area (A1) and a buffer element (A2) connected with the active area (A1), comprising: a first substrate (20); a second substrate (10) facing and spaced with the first substrate (20) in a distance (See Fig. 2a); a plurality of electrodes (21) disposed on the first substrate (20) and in the active area (A1); a modulation material (L) filled in the active area (A1); a conductive layer (12) disposed on the second substrate (10) and in the active area (A1) and the buffer element (A2), a plurality of spacers (S) disposed between the first substrate (20) and the second substrate (10), wherein at least one of the plurality of spacers (S) is located in the buffer element (A2), wherein the buffer element (A2) is configured to provide a space for adjusting the amount of the modulation material (L) in the active area (A1).
Toru is silent on that the antenna device comprising a plurality of slits in the active area.
Stevenson et al. disclose (in Fig. 6) a plurality of slits (defined by the gaps in 636) in the active area (defined the area accommodating 613).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the antenna device comprising a plurality of slits in the active area as taught by Stevenson et al. into the device of Toru for the benefit of achieving antenna with
Improved connectivity with decreased form factor, increased performance, and/or expanded use cases of communication platforms (Para. 0004, Lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 2:
Toru discloses the plurality of electrodes (21) and the conductive layer (12) are disposed between the first substrate (20) and the second substrate (10).
Regarding claim 3:
Toru is silent on that one of the plurality of slits overlaps one of the plurality of electrodes in a normal direction of a surface of the first substrate.
Stevenson et al. disclose one of the plurality of slits (gaps in 636) overlaps one of the plurality of
electrodes (611) in a normal direction of a surface of the first substrate (631).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the plurality of slits overlaps one of the plurality of electrodes in a normal direction of a surface of the first substrate as taught by Stevenson et al. into the device of Toru for the benefit of achieving antenna with Improved connectivity with decreased form factor, increased performance, and/or expanded use cases of communication platforms (Para. 0004, Lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 6:
Toru discloses the modulation material (L) comprises liquid crystal (Para. 0012, Lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 7:
Toru discloses further comprising a partition element (30), where a portion of a surface of the first substrate (20) is surrounded by the partition element (30), and the active area (A1) is located in the portion of the surface of the first substrate (20).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toru (JP4760155B2) in view of Stevenson et al. (US 20150222021) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 20160139445).
Regarding claim 4-5:
Toru as modified are silent on that another one of the plurality of spacers is disposed in the active area as required by claim 4; and the another one of the plurality of spacers is different from the at least one of the plurality of spacers in height as required by claim 5.
Zhu et al. disclose (in Figs. 3A, 3B) another one of the plurality of spacers (308) is disposed in the active area (within 304); the another one of the plurality of spacers (308) is different from the at least one of the plurality of spacers (307) in height (See Figs.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement another one of the plurality of spacers is disposed in the active area and the another one of the plurality of spacers is different from the at least one of the plurality of spacers in height as taught by Zhu et al. into the modified device of Toru for the benefit of improving the pressure-resistant property of the device, so that a depression caused by the pressing is recovered as soon as possible (Para. 0050, Lines 17-19).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 5712707893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845